Welcome Notice

Register Log in

Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop...

F

Fred Bloggs

Guest
Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/
 
E

Ed Lee

Guest
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:06:23 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/
How do they define dosing?

Half dose + full dose
or
Full dose + double dose

Based on how much they cost?
 
S

server

Guest
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:06:15 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/
You love all this death and misery.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.
 
M

Martin Brown

Guest
On 24/11/2020 15:13, Ed Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:06:23 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/

How do they define dosing?
Enough to trigger a decent immune response without causing collateral
damage or adverse reactions in too many people. Same as anyone else.
Half dose + full dose
or
Full dose + double dose
Since it is looking like half dose, delay, full dose works best then
they are likely to use that regime and do 3 people for every 2 doses.
Nature has some reasonably informed comments on it in their News:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03326-w

It is a clear win-win if their data truly supports that claim.

> Based on how much they cost?

They have a price advantage with a more conventional bulk vaccine
production process and a much less demanding cool chain distribution.

Now might be a good time to buy shares in dry ice manufacturers.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
F

Fred Bloggs

Guest
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:48:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/11/2020 15:13, Ed Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:06:23 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/

How do they define dosing?
Enough to trigger a decent immune response without causing collateral
damage or adverse reactions in too many people. Same as anyone else.
\"Decent\" response being arbitrarily defined as neutralizing antibody titers taken from recovered patients, and considered a controversial threshold seeing as some people recover with zero antibodies in circulation..

Half dose + full dose
or
Full dose + double dose
Since it is looking like half dose, delay, full dose works best then
they are likely to use that regime and do 3 people for every 2 doses.
Nature has some reasonably informed comments on it in their News:
Excuse me but 1+2/3= 5/3 dose per patient is 5 doses for every three patients, not two.

AZ is desperately trying to salvage real bad phase 3 trial in Brazil- anything else they have to say is smoke screen.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03326-w

It is a clear win-win if their data truly supports that claim.
Based on how much they cost?
They have a price advantage with a more conventional bulk vaccine
production process and a much less demanding cool chain distribution.
You get what you pay for.

Now might be a good time to buy shares in dry ice manufacturers.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
R

Rickster C

Guest
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:13:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:06:23 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/
How do they define dosing?

Half dose + full dose
or
Full dose + double dose

Based on how much they cost?
Drug dosing has always been a crap shoot because, at least in the US, they don\'t take into account the size of the patient. Someone weighing 110 lbs should not receive the same dose as someone weighing 220 lbs. That creates problems when the dangerous dose is close to the therapeutic dose. For smaller people they get a dose that is twice what it needs to be or the larger people get a dose that is barely effective.

I get that they think it is awkward or even dangerous to dose according to body weight simply because of the opportunities for error. So we have what we have.

Compressing the studies into a shorter time presents hazards, but it\'s more about economic risk. The hazard at each level is reduced even if there is some overlap in timing. The economic risk is much greater as each phase of studies cost very much more. So if the end of phase 2 finds issues after some lion\'s share of the cost of phase 3 is spent, then it\'s all money down a rat hole.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
B

boB

Guest
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:28:33 -0800 (PST), Rickster C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:13:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:06:23 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/
How do they define dosing?

Half dose + full dose
or
Full dose + double dose

Based on how much they cost?

Drug dosing has always been a crap shoot because, at least in the US, they don\'t take into account the size of the patient. Someone weighing 110 lbs should not receive the same dose as someone weighing 220 lbs. That creates problems when the dangerous dose is close to the therapeutic dose. For smaller people they get a dose that is twice what it needs to be or the larger people get a dose that is barely effective.

I get that they think it is awkward or even dangerous to dose according to body weight simply because of the opportunities for error. So we have what we have.

Compressing the studies into a shorter time presents hazards, but it\'s more about economic risk. The hazard at each level is reduced even if there is some overlap in timing. The economic risk is much greater as each phase of studies cost very much more. So if the end of phase 2 finds issues after some lion\'s share of the cost of phase 3 is spent, then it\'s all money down a rat hole.
Here is a decent explanation of the effectiveness

https://youtu.be/GOq8-FR8s1E
 
D

David Brown

Guest
On 24/11/2020 16:37, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:06:15 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/



You love all this death and misery.
Maybe his is just pissed because the Oxford vaccine is much cheaper,
easier to mass produce and easier to distribute than the two American
candidates?

In reality, it\'s a good thing that there are several vaccines that look
like they will do a decent and safe job. Different vaccines have their
pros and cons. It means that we can give the best protection to groups
that need it most, and solid but cheaper protection to everyone. It
means we can distribute vaccines even in countries and places that don\'t
have high-tech deep freezers. We can see which vaccines work best on
different age groups or other differentiating factors. We have a good
chance of still having something that works even if there is serious
mutation in the virus. We have improved techniques, competence and
infrastructure for when the next pandemic comes along - or for adapting
for other existing diseases.

All in all, the more the better for different types of Covid vaccines,
and even less-than-ideal efficacy is still good.

(And I include the Russian and Chinese vaccines in this group of likely
vaccines - they may have rushed the testing more than what is safe, just
as a matter of national pride, but that doesn\'t mean the vaccines
themselves are bad. It just means we don\'t know for sure that they are
good.)
 
C

Cursitor Doom

Guest
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:06:15 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spo

You really don\'t like the British, do you, Fred?
 
C

Cursitor Doom

Guest
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:50:33 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>The adenovirus vaccines are an older technology ( over two decades) rapidly becoming obsolete. The latest and most effective vaccine technology is based on messenger RNA, mRNA, and doesn\'t use problematic viruses to deliver it to the cells. This is the technology being used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, and the results so far are spectacular effectiveness.

You see it as \"becoming obsolete\" - I see it as *tried and trusted* -
a safer option for those of us who are risk-averse.
It\'s also the cheapest shot so far announced.
They\'re also going to produce it on a NOT-FOR-PROFIT basis around the
world.
And it doesn\'t need some fancy megabucks freezer to store it.
OK, it takes two shots to get 90% effective, but all things considered
I\'d take this one in a heartbeat. AZ has been partnering with Oxford
for decades so it\'s not some marriage of convenience.
I don\'t trust the other shots - especially the Pfizer one.
 
C

Cursitor Doom

Guest
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:37:54 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:06:15 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/



You love all this death and misery.
Well, he\'ll have plenty of both to rejoice in after his Globalist tool
of a \'president\' takes over in January.
 
W

whit3rd

Guest
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 5:04:12 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:37:54 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

You love all this death and misery.

Well, he\'ll have plenty of both to rejoice in after his Globalist tool
of a \'president\' takes over in January.
Global problems (pandemic, climate change, species extinctions, plastic pollution...)
require global attention, and \'tool\' means a useful implement.

So, an effective agent against global problems is what the White House will soon contain, you
think? Why does that tie in to death and misery?
 
F

Fred Bloggs

Guest
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:57:03 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:50:33 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

The adenovirus vaccines are an older technology ( over two decades) rapidly becoming obsolete. The latest and most effective vaccine technology is based on messenger RNA, mRNA, and doesn\'t use problematic viruses to deliver it to the cells. This is the technology being used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, and the results so far are spectacular effectiveness.
You see it as \"becoming obsolete\" - I see it as *tried and trusted* -
a safer option for those of us who are risk-averse.
Why would you make such a statement when you obviously don\'t know the facts..

\"While adenoviral vectors have been tested in far more people than mRNA vaccines, the technology is used in only one commercial vaccine today: a rabies vaccine used to immunize wild animals. So far, no adenoviral vector vaccines have demonstrated they can prevent disease in humans.\"

Key takeaway is no adenovirus vaccine has EVER been successful on humans, and this is not for lack of trying. How the hell is that \"tried and trusted?\" Tried and trusted to be an ineffective failure is what it is. And the particular Oxford group at Jenner has a record of total failure in using this exact same virus vector in an attempt to produce a vaccine for the original SARS.

https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vectors-new-COVID-19/98/i19


It\'s also the cheapest shot so far announced.
They\'re also going to produce it on a NOT-FOR-PROFIT basis around the
world.
And it doesn\'t need some fancy megabucks freezer to store it.
OK, it takes two shots to get 90% effective, but all things considered
I\'d take this one in a heartbeat. AZ has been partnering with Oxford
for decades so it\'s not some marriage of convenience.
I don\'t trust the other shots - especially the Pfizer one.
It doesn\'t take megabucks refrigeration to maintain -70oC. There is quite a huge selection of off-the-shelf units that deliver that kind of performance affordably. And that temperature is specified only for long term storage life. The vaccine can be removed to conventional refrigeration unit a day or two prior to use.

Stop allowing yourself to be victimized by mindless propaganda.
 
F

Fred Bloggs

Guest
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:06:15 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spo
You really don\'t like the British, do you, Fred?
Based on my observation of their behavior, I really don\'t care for this AZ bunch. They should have had the plug pulled when they failed the direct challenge testing on the macaques. If it was anybody else, they would have. That signaled to me there were political forces at play, and that ALWAYS spells disaster.
 
F

Fred Bloggs

Guest
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:37, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:06:15 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/



You love all this death and misery.

Maybe his is just pissed because the Oxford vaccine is much cheaper,
easier to mass produce and easier to distribute than the two American
candidates?

In reality, it\'s a good thing that there are several vaccines that look
like they will do a decent and safe job. Different vaccines have their
pros and cons. It means that we can give the best protection to groups
that need it most, and solid but cheaper protection to everyone. It
means we can distribute vaccines even in countries and places that don\'t
have high-tech deep freezers. We can see which vaccines work best on
different age groups or other differentiating factors. We have a good
chance of still having something that works even if there is serious
mutation in the virus. We have improved techniques, competence and
infrastructure for when the next pandemic comes along - or for adapting
for other existing diseases.

All in all, the more the better for different types of Covid vaccines,
and even less-than-ideal efficacy is still good.

(And I include the Russian and Chinese vaccines in this group of likely
vaccines - they may have rushed the testing more than what is safe, just
as a matter of national pride, but that doesn\'t mean the vaccines
themselves are bad. It just means we don\'t know for sure that they are
good.)
Oxford is not going to be approved for use in the U.S. for the simple reason their trials testing is not conforming to FDA regulation. They may have FDA approval to conduct their testing, but when they deviate into conformance with regulation, their trial results become null. They outright lied about their vaccine efficacy. It is measured at 70% on their largest Phase 3 cohort of nearly 40,000, even that modest result is probably a lie, and the 90% lie comes from a super small unrepresentative sample of 2,000 people receiving the reduced dose primer. AstraZeneca is lying about everything.
The entire idea of an adenovirus vaccine is fundamentally flawed in practice because of the enduring immune response to their vector, which may even pre-exist in many third world regions of the world, suppressing the desired immune response to the coronavirus. And it really creates problems for people needing booster vaccination at a later date.
These people are frauds.
 
F

Fred Bloggs

Guest
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 4:46:44 PM UTC-5, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 27.11.20 um 20:18 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
Care to explain how you don\'t eradicate a virus with multiple hosts when the population is immune to it? It is not possible to immunize all possible human hosts with a weak vaccine like Oxford, but it is possible to effectively do so with a potent mRNA vaccine.
Because you must also vaccinate all minks, rabbits, rats, bats and
maybe toads?
Eradicate means it won\'t come back for good, and won\'t pop up again
in 10 years.
Okay- we have different definitions of eradication going on here.
I meant the disease was eradicated from the human race. It\'s not necessary to kill every living creature that might harbor the disease to do that. It\'s enough to immunize the population. And in the case of an infrequent zoonotic event, since nearly everyone is immunized, you can\'t begin to have an epidemic- the population of susceptibles is effectively zero. The duration of the immunity imparted by the vaccine is an unknown right now, but the whole world will need to be periodically re-vaccinated if necessary. The main point is that whatever the program of immunization is, it\'s much more likely to be successful with a potent vaccine of high effectiveness than a vaccine of mediocre effectiveness.


Speaking of popping up: In Denmark they had mass killings of minkies
that had a mutated Covid strain, different but infectuous to humans.
They did not put enough earth on the dump, so, driven by fouling gas
some of the minkies resurfaced. Eeeek.
 
D

David Brown

Guest
On 27/11/2020 20:18, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 12:02:34 PM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 27/11/2020 16:34, Fred Bloggs wrote:

This means the Oxford vaccine will probably never eradicate the
virus from circulation as has been done with measles for example.
In case that still doesn\'t sink in, a 95% effectiveness requires
only 63% of the population to be immunized by vaccine for total
eradication. And this can achieve a measles-like eradication. Do
you see the stupidity of saving $16 per dose and a little bit of
money on refrigeration does for you.
And here /your/ ignorance is showing clearly. You don\'t get
eradication of a virus that has multiple hosts, unless you
vaccinate or eradicate all those hosts. Measles could be eliminated
entirely, if it were not for the idiots of the world, because
humans are the only host. Covid cannot.

Care to explain how you don\'t eradicate a virus with multiple hosts
when the population is immune to it? It is not possible to immunize
all possible human hosts with a weak vaccine like Oxford, but it is
possible to effectively do so with a potent mRNA vaccine. The mRNA
vaccine is not the ultimate, there\'s at least one other technology
just completing Phase 3 which should be just as effective.
I would have thought this is obvious, but apparently not. You write as
though you know something about diseases and vaccines, though you get
plenty wrong - but this stuff is so fundamental that I wonder why you
don\'t understand it.

Start with a disease like smallpox that only infects a single host -
humans. Vaccinate everyone. No one gets smallpox, so there are no
hosts in which the virus can replicate. The virus becomes extinct.
Future generations do not need to be vaccinated, because there is no
more smallpox virus. (This could be done with measles and polio, if
only the anti-vax morons could also be eliminated.)

Now consider a disease like Covid that also replicates in bats, mink,
cats, dogs, and many other animals (with varying degrees of
infectiousness). Again, vaccinate everyone. No one gets Covid. But
the disease continues to exist and spread in other animals. Everyone
needs to keep getting the vaccine on a regular basis (we don\'t know how
regular that is at the moment, and won\'t know for years or decades).
The disease is never eradicated, because it replicates in animals that
are not vaccinated.

Secondly, for people who have a dollar or so a day in total for
everything in their lives, $16 could be a year\'s worth of savings.
And in parts of the world where ordinary fridges are unheard-of,
-80°C systems are never going to happen.

Obviously the people will not be required to pay for it in those
circumstances, the government will.
Which \"government\" would that be? In countries where $16 is way beyond
what people could pay, it is also way beyond what their governments
could pay (even if the relevant authorities were not corrupt).

It\'s in the government\'s best
interest to do so if they intend to remain viable. The price tag on
the mRNA virus will not stand. The free market will produce a
solution at sharply reduced cost, as always happens when you dangle
multi-billion dollar opportunities in front of business.
Ah, the old \"the free market will solve everything\" solution. Right.
 
E

Ed Lee

Guest
Obviously the people will not be required to pay for it in those
circumstances, the government will.
Which \"government\" would that be? In countries where $16 is way beyond
what people could pay, it is also way beyond what their governments
could pay (even if the relevant authorities were not corrupt).
I know, they have to save money to build missiles to kill us. Even if they do, we will still distribute to the people at much lower cost.
 
W

whit3rd

Guest
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 12:34:03 AM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:

> ...we should go slow with the Oxford/AZ approach. We would not, and should not put the entire US population on this one option anyway. Six months ago, that might be a reasonable bet. But now there are still more questions than answers from Oxford/AZ. We should reassess the situation and suspend/cancel the order, even if we have to pay penalty with the $1 billion contract..

Oh, no, that\'s not right. When the AZ deal went in, there were more questions than answers, and the
candidate vaccine wasn\'t past its testing phase. That\'s still the case. Suspending/canceling
at this time would be silly.

Sometimes, patience is a virtue. Be virtuous.
 
D

David Brown

Guest
On 26/11/2020 18:53, Ed Lee wrote:

Well, we (US tax payers) gave Oxford lots of money too. We want
reasonable results or to stop paying early.
Perhaps you don\'t know how this all works. You seem to be missing
several points.

1. At the start of the vaccine development processes, /no one/ knows
which vaccines may or may not work. (Even now, we have no clear idea of
the long-term effects of any of the candidates - it will take years to
establish that.) So the US invested money (paid some, promised more) to
a range of vaccine developers in the hope that at least one would be
successful. Some that got money were not successful - that does not
mean the money was wasted. For any of these potential vaccines that
runs out of steam, or is clearly not going to result in something
useful, the development will stop.

2. Lots of countries have sponsored lots of vaccine developments. The
US state is not special in this regard. (Though it is probably unique
in also sponsoring people who have no qualifications other than being
friends with the president.) The US state has given (or promised) more
money than most - but then, it has more money to give.

3. Different vaccines have different pros and cons (some of which will
not be known for years). Even if it turns out that the Oxford vaccine
is weaker than others, it is still a good thing to have it. More
working vaccines is hedging the bets in case something goes wrong, such
as mutations rendering other vaccines ineffective. And in most
countries, we are concerned in trying to get vaccines that work for
/everyone/ - not just the rich countries of the world. A vaccine that
costs $20 and requires -80°C freezers will not work for India, while one
that costs $3 and requires a fridge will do the job nicely. You\'ve
suffered under a \"me first, screw everyone else\" president for the last
4 years, and perhaps that makes you think the only vaccine the USA
should pay towards is a vaccine to give to Americans. But fortunately
enough people are smart enough to realise that the USA is only /part/ of
the world, and even from the most selfish \"America first\" viewpoint,
your country is better off if the rest of the world gets rid of Covid too.
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top